Russia is over a 1000 years old and a long diplomatic history. any of Russia's concerns may arise from the ignorance of American elites about Russian past and its sensitivity to actual or alleged threats of alien invasion.
Many Americans remember the immense drama that took place during the Kennedy presidency erstwhile the Soviets placed respective missiles in Cuba. abroad policy experts are inactive talking about how close we were to planet War III. Americans who do not know or recognise Russia's past are incapable to realize Russian thinking, which jeopardises their ability to enter into agreements with Russia.
After the collapse of the russian Union, American political elites promised not to decision NATO east to the countries of the erstwhile Warsaw Pact. Whenever another state of the erstwhile Warsaw Pact was added to NATO, the Russians complained, and the West disposed of these complaints with a decision of arms. They felt that Russia was besides weak due to their conflict to recover after the ruining russian years. Washington's attitude was as follows: “So what are you going to do about it?”
The American leaders have besides spent years engaging to get bored of threatening to weaken or break Russia, ruin the Russian economy, change the Russian government – and, of course, imposed decades of endless sanctions. specified conduct undermined the assurance essential to negociate in good faith.
After the dissolution of the russian Union, the Russians wanted to be incorporated into the West. (They naively believed in our communicative about peace, democracy and freedom, even erstwhile we engaged in endless wars). George H.W. Bush assured Gorbachev that the US had no intention of antagonizing Russia and that NATO was a defensive organization. erstwhile the Russians withdrew their troops from the countries of the Warsaw Pact, Gorbachev was assured that NATO would not benefit from this withdrawal. The Warsaw Pact was created in 1955 as a consequence to the creation of NATO in 1949. From the very beginning, they saw NATO as a threat.
Even after American experts helped ruin the post-Soviet Russian economy, The Russians wanted to be our friends. any Russians have been and are inactive distrustful of American motives and actions. Their concerns that NATO is not strictly defensive were confirmed during Operation Deny Flight from 1993 to 1995, Operation Deliberalate Force in 1995 and in 1999, erstwhile the Clinton administration utilized NATO to bomb part of the erstwhile Yugoslavia. The example of Yugoslavia was not just a one-time case. NATO, which Gorbachev and Yeltsyn were convinced was defensive, besides participated in the business of Iraq (2003) and the demolition of Libya (2011).
This aggressive usage of the theoretically defensive alliance went hand in hand with American diplomatic ineptitude. The United States has violated and cancelled Clinton's 1994 North Korea agreement and the Russian Act Agreement. In 2002, George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 anti-balistic treaty, which was the consequence of SALT I. Vladimir Putin then proposed a joint venture to make a universal anti-balistic strategy to avoid a fresh arms race. Bush's administration turned down that offer.
George W. Bush's 2003 agreement on normalizing relations with Libya was ignored in 2011, erstwhile the Obama Administration bombing run (using NATO) destroyed this country. Libya's not up yet. In 2014, the US supported a coup d'état in Ukraine that overturned president Viktor Yanukovych, who was considered besides friendly to Russia. Russia entered Donbass to defend the Russian-speaking population that was attacked by Ukrainian forces. erstwhile the Russians circumnavigated Ukrainian forces in the conflict of Ilovajsk, the West requested a ceasefire which was codified in the Minsk I agreement. In 2015, an agreement was created between Minsk II to end the war.
The Russians complained for years that the Ukrainians did not comply with Minsk II's agreement, and the West arm and strengthen the Ukrainian army with NATO. Larry Johnson has published a list of NATO exercises in and around Ukraine over the last 2 decades. In 2023 Angela Merkel, who was the main associate in the negotiations in Minsk, admitted that they only buy time to strengthen Ukrainian troops to fight Russia. This is the main reason why Russia is not falling for another ceasefire agreement.
In 2018, Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from Obama's 2015 Joint Comprehensive Action Plan with Iran. The treaty aimed to guarantee the planet that Iran does not make atomic weapons. In 2019, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on the Complete Elimination of average scope Missiles. In the same year, funded by the US government, Rand corp published a study entitled “Extension of Russia”, which contains a 350-page description of possible actions to harm or weaken Russia.
In 2020, the US unilaterally withdrew from the 1992 Open Sky Treaty, which aimed at ensuring any transparency in the deployment of atomic forces. The Russians besides do not forget the various colorful revolutions set up on their outskirts by the US and their supporters.
In December 2021, Russia made a peace offering to halt NATO's advancement in Ukraine. The United States has completely ignored this by retaking the tired pose: “So what are you going to do about it?” Russian leaders show the US and NATO coalitions what Russia can and will do. The planet was subjected to a continuous propaganda campaign, in which it was proclaimed that the Russian economy was weak and close a breakdown, and the army of the Russian Federation was poorly trained and poorly equipped, fighting with shovels. The claim that Russia would end rockets by the summertime of 2022 now seems foolish. The Ukrainian Army has steadily lost ground underfoot since the failure of the US-organised offensive in the summertime of 2023.
The Istanbul agreement of March/April 2022 on the end of the war in the first weeks met with opposition from the West. In 2022, Victoria Nuland revealed that the U.S. supports biological laboratories in Ukraine. There is besides a list of painful historical experiences that affect Russian thinking.
In 1941, erstwhile the Nazi German army attacked the russian Union, it crossed the territories of present-day Ukraine with a confederate attack towards Stalingrad. More than a million Soviets died in Stalingrad's defence alone. The Nazi approach to the north towards the edge of Moscow crossed the areas of present-day Poland and Belarus. Napoleon's army traveled a akin way on their way to Moscow in 1812, and hundreds of thousands of Russians died in a conflict to displace his army back to France. The Russians suffered nearly a million casualties defending Moscow from the Nazis.
A full of 26 million russian citizens died in the fight against the Nazis in planet War II. The russian Army was besides liable for about 80 percent of the losses on the Wehrmacht side. The United States has lost over 400,000 Americans in both planet War II theatres, which is simply a immense tragedy, but only a tiny fraction of russian losses.
The impact of the horrific historical experience on the Russian psyche is incomprehensible to Americans. Americans inactive look at the deaths of 3,000 citizens killed on September 11, 2001 and in attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941. russian losses and suffering during the planet War were many times greater than all U.S. losses and losses in all our wars throughout our 250-year history.
The existence of troops and offensive weapons in Ukraine and Poland poses a real threat to the Russians. It is an instinctive fear resulting from the bitter past of the invasion, especially the invasion of the Nazis in 1941 and the terrible sufferings they experienced during this war. In addition, there is simply a long past of broken agreements and Western provocations – all of which creates further fluctuations in the negotiations.
While it is clear that the Russians have been misbehaving for years, threats, provocations and material support for war by the US and NATO as real obstacles to settling the conflict cannot be ignored. Scott Horton late wrote a 800-page book describing the decades of American provocation. In addition to many treaties and agreements that the United States has broken, US leaders have late hit a peculiarly serious blow to the country's global credibility. During loud calls to cease arms, end wars, negociate settlements, etc., the U.S. are suspected of allowing a Ukrainian attack in the depths of Russia. This attack did not seriously affect the result of the Russian-Ukrainian War, but damaged Russian strategical bombers, which are part of the country's atomic triad. Imagine what would happen if a country attacked an American strategical aviation command base and damaged American B-52 bombers. There would be large outrage behind the war.
Shortly after this disaster, during negotiations with Iran on his atomic program, American leadership allowed Israelis to hit Iran's leaders. Many Iranian leaders were killed and others became targets for attacks, including 1 of the negotiators who was preparing to meet the American diplomatic squad a fewer days later. After the Israeli attack, the United States, with large enthusiasm from average instigators, bombed any Iranian atomic installations. Is this how negotiations will be conducted in the future?
Such behaviour violates centuries-old diplomatic norms. Who, erstwhile witnessing this cunning and destructive behavior, will trust the United States to negociate in good faith? What does a deal with the United States mean?
George D. O’Neill Jr.
Member of the board of the American Ideas Institute, which publishes "The American Conservative"
Behind: The American Conservative
Photo: kremlin.ru
